Mr. Speaker, we know that the Liberal government is borrowing a lot of money to carry out projects and make its friends happy. However, the problem is that the government is forgetting that all of that money will have to be paid back one day. Our children and grandchildren will be the ones footing the bill.

Meanwhile, the Liberal government is raising taxes on Canadian workers. As a result, families, entrepreneurs, and students are now paying more taxes than they were two years ago.

With the new budget just a few weeks away, will the Minister of Finance commit to not increasing Canadians' payroll taxes?

Mr. Speaker, the results are very clear. We have cut taxes for the middle class. That is the truth.

Thanks to our tax cuts, individuals are paying $330 less in taxes this year and families are paying $540 less. The nine out of ten families who are receiving the Canada child benefit are getting, on average, an additional $2,300 this year. There is more money for the middle class and for the most vulnerable members of our society. We are going to continue to help them through our program.

Those earning $44,000 received nothing; those earning $60,000 a year made it out with barely two and a half bucks more per week. However, those earning $199,000 a year hit the jackpot. That is the Liberal Party's reality.

Will the government tell Canadian workers the truth and reassure them that there will be no new taxes in the next budget? That is what we want to know.

Mr. Speaker, the truth could not be plainer: nine out of ten families with children are better off.

For example, a woman with one child earning $30,000 a year will receive up to $5,400. On average, these families will receive $2,300 more than last year. It is a big change and taxes are lower. Improving the situation of the middle class and the most vulnerable will continue to be the goal of our program.

Mr. Speaker, a new research report states that the benefits touted in CETA are based on flawed, unrealistic economic models. It concludes that CETA will result in 23,000 jobs lost in Canada, and increased inequality.

The NDP has been saying this all along. The Prime Minister himself admits these realities exist, but only in Europe before a sea of tuxedos and ball gowns.

Again, does the government have a plan to address the job losses and increased inequality that will be generated in Canada by CETA?

Mr. Speaker, CETA is the most progressive trade agreement ever negotiated by Canada, or the EU. It will create jobs, bolster our shared prosperity, and strengthen the middle class.

The study the member has referred to does not even take into account tariffs. However, as our Prime Minister said in his address to the European Parliament, this is a “forward looking agreement”. It reflects a progressive trade agenda. It empowers societies to stand up for the public good. It is one that puts small and medium-size enterprises at the heart of what we are focusing on. It puts the interests of workers and consumers at the centre of our negotiations and gives access to small and medium-sized businesses—

Mr. Speaker, while in opposition, the Prime Minister said that the previous government “failed to adequately address the concerns of Canadian sectors that may be negatively impacted by CETA, including Newfoundland and Labrador's fish processors”. However, now in power, his government is saying that it will not offer compensation.

Which is it? Since the Liberals agreed to CETA, which they know will cost thousands of jobs in Atlantic Canada, will the minister work with the industry and provinces to offer proper compensation?

Mr. Speaker, it perhaps should not surprise you that we disagree with the premise of the member's question. We think CETA will offer Atlantic Canadians thousands of opportunities for more and better jobs. That is why we are so proud of this historic agreement. That is why my colleagues and I have been working with provincial premiers, fisheries ministers, and innovation ministers to ensure the Atlantic economy, and every part of the country, is in a position to maximize the benefit from this historic agreement.

Mr. Speaker, as the member opposite knows and as the Prime Minister has reiterated, we are open to trade and investment. Under the Investment Canada Act we did a thorough review and we looked at what was in the overall net economic benefit for Canada. Based on that, we were able to obtain the commitments with regard to job levels with this transaction, with regard to the expansion of facilities and financing them.

The bottom line is that it is about growing the economy, creating jobs, and strengthening the middle class. That is exactly what this deal is doing.

Bardish ChaggerLiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism

Mr. Speaker, I must be clear that the Commissioner of Lobbying looks at the activity of lobbyists.

With respect to previous fundraising activity, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner has said that no rules were broken.

That being said, we recognize that we can do more, and that is why the Minister of Democratic Institutions will introduce new legislation to make political fundraising even more open and more transparent.

Mr. Speaker, everyone knows about the Liberal Party's questionable practice of holding $1,500 fundraisers that give guests the opportunity for private discussions about specific projects with ministers and the Prime Minister.

We just learned that the government has approved agreements with a Chinese company to buy a major retirement home chain in British Columbia.

Can the Prime Minister tell us whether executives or representatives of Chinese insurance company Anbang paid $1,500 for privileged access to the Liberals, yes or no?

We make sure we do a thorough analysis, and any decision we make is of overall net economic benefit to all Canadians.

We looked at the transaction. We made sure that the employment levels were significant. We looked at it with respect to the opportunity, the economy, and expansion opportunities for the retirement facility.

The bottom line is, we did a thorough analysis. We made sure it was under the Investment Act.

Mr. Speaker, last weekend my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé and I demonstrated in front of the Minister of Transport's office alongside the residents of Neuville, Saint-Cuthbert, and Mascouche who are disappointed, angry in fact, about the scant attention they are receiving from the minister.

Aerodromes are being developed with no real public consultation, without consultation with other levels of government, and without social licence. This is shameful.

Why, despite opposition from the public, the municipalities, and the Government of Quebec, is the minister putting the interests of private developers before the interests of the residents?

However, I want to reassure my colleague that we are in fact consulting. That is part of our decision-making process. We must first ensure that the aerodrome will be safe, and second, that it is in the public's interest.

I issued a ministerial order last March regarding the Mascouche project, and I also encouraged the same procedure for the Saint-Cuthbert airport. We are following the procedures and we are consulting before making any decisions.

We worked intensively with the provinces and the softwood lumber industry. Reaching a new softwood lumber trade agreement remains a priority for our government. Today, I am announcing a federal-provincial task force on softwood lumber. We are joining forces to address the challenges facing the industry, the workers, and their families.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the parliamentary budget officer reinforced that the Liberals have failed to be transparent to get infrastructure built across Canada and that smaller communities are being shut out. The Liberals are now funnelling $15 billion away from community infrastructure to fund their new bank, a bank that will have no transparency.

Will the Liberals stop this wrong-headed plan and return the $15 billion to communities that need it the most?